h/t to Steve Mosher left the link here, if he wants it. Read some of the abstracts and titles, all I see is waste. Endless waste from those on the gravy train. Sure some of the papers are probably worthwhile, but my guess is under 10%. The rest is pseudoscientific rubbish.

I was going to put some of the abstracts up, I read another ten more and simply can’t stand them. It reads like sun god prayer to me. I’m busy messing around with one of the most famous scientist’s works — ONE, from two years ago, and the world governments just bought 300 new ones.

Jesus, how can we fight big government. I don’t want the world these sophist data manipulators advocate, but they will force it on us. As unnecessary as it is, we will be forced.

The politicians don’t have the same goals as the scientists propose.

And they never will, or they wouldn’t be politicians.

The situation is worsening quickly. Coverups, false methods, bad work, good work blocked, and once the policy is enacted it’s definitely an irreversible tipping point.

Greg. Cavanaghsaid

It looks like the monster is too big to ever put back into its box now. Too many politicians and too many supporters in positions of authority/power who do not want to look at the core underlying points of contention. They have formed their opionion and have become convinced, no amount of doubt or questionable science will convince them otherwise.

Its the start of a fall of a once great civilisation. Too top heavy and the system doesn’t allow for the people to make their own decisions.

Bad Andrewsaid

We should do what all good scientific-minded Americans have done before us- we find out what works and do the best we can with it. What we can’t do is run away from our problems (even though we didn’t create them). We have to stay put and solve them.

Brian Hsaid

I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I have hopes of a “left field” science development that may cut the entire carbon-control scam off at the knees.

Just under 2 years ago, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics finally got (100% non-government) minimal funding adequate to pursue its proof-of-concept project. It now appears that this year (2010) it will indeed achieve “scientific break-even”, for the first time in history. This will/should lead on to 2-3 yrs of engineering of its proposed generator design, which will be a waste- and radiation-free stand-alone 5MW unit housed in a structure about the size of a transport container, or small garage. Pricing for purchase and output will be about 1/20 of going costs for conventional, and 1/50 of ‘renewable’, alternatives. The intention is to offer licenses for manufacture and distribution at very reasonable prices to all comers, world-wide.

The consequences would be disruptive, revolutionary. The carbon/pollution/CAGW issues would vanish. Alleviation of poverty and shortages would be easily attainable, everywhere.

Tom Fullersaid

Don’t you all give up now… I’ve predicted for months that this would be a ‘good’ year for the consensus and a ‘difficult’ year for skeptics (Of course I also predicted Pachauri would be gone by June 30… oops…). But this is a 30 year war and we’re only 10 years into it.

AEGeneralsaid

Chop the global warming head off, another will grow back in its place. Only way to kill the beast is to keep feeding it what it wants until it implodes (think Rob Reiner living next to a 24-hour, all-you-can-eat buffet). All ponzi schemes collapse eventually. I’m for feeding the scheme & getting this over with, myself.

When it’s all over, we’ll put them on a boat (or use Rob Reiner as a flotation device), shove them out to sea, wave goodbye and start over.

Doesn’t mean I haven’t enjoyed watching people wake up the last few years, though. Especially about global warm….er, climate change. Just look at the polls & imagine what they would look like if Al Gore hadn’t invented the internet.

Before Climategate, I assumed that efforts to evade or manipulate data was limited to the NASA-sponsored US space science community – although we encountered strangely similar censorship at international conferences in Switzerland and Italy in 2001 and in Canada in 2004. http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/IronRichSun.pdf

gallopingcamelsaid

What you are talking about is tyranny by folks who insist that they have our best interests at heart. Governments are using “Soft Lysenkoism” to control the scientists and it is more dangerous than Stalin’s original Lysenkoism.

Climate ‘skeptics’ keep screaming for ‘openness’ from climate scientists. So why is the climate ‘skeptic’ group the Friends of Science Society secretly trying to start another front group, ‘Climate Change 101’? Why is the Friends of Science Society still refusing to be transparent about its funding sources?

Amabosaid

stansaid

I may be too cheerful this morning, but I am very optimistic that we are close to a tipping point in the battle to return to real science. Even Alinsky understood the power of ridicule to sway opinion. (E.g. note the most memorable moment in the recent Guardian debate was when everyone in the room laughed at Davies.)

Scientists who don’t think that they need to check their instruments are a joke. And it’s a joke that even a high school dropout understands. Same for transparency, replication, abiding by basic principles of forecasting, etc. When they claim that the IPCC represents peer reviewed science and it turns out to be activist political propaganda, they are a joke. People are getting the joke. The laughter is increasing.

I predict that someone is going to do a youtube of a standup comic making fun of the alarmist incompetence (something like George Carlin’s funny rant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c only focused on Mikey, Phil, the team). It will go viral. And the 10 minutes of youtube comedy will be the tipping point.

Garysaid

Step back and see the Hegelian dialectic at work. Despotic regimes generate counter-insurgencies and a lot of damage results from the struggle. Theologists identify it as a “sin-problem” because much of humanity seeks to deify itself out of pride and arrogance. Cycles within cycles yet moving in a direction like the arrow of time.

Steven Moshersaid

“How did Congress (or at least elements of it) come to care about an issue that was barely a blip on the scientific radar screen five years ago?

The answer includes concentration (figuring out how to make the issue more potent), temperature (turning up the heat on the issue through the media) and pressure (pushing selected members of Congress and their staffs).

In this case, concentration involved at least two steps: getting the attention of the larger scientific community, and deciding what to call the phenomenon. As of 2004, a number of key papers had been published on how carbon dioxide could alter the ocean (see pages 46 and 96), but many scientists still saw oceans mainly as a carbon sink that dampened impacts on the climate. When a major international conference on the oceans and carbon was being put together for May 2004, the initial focus was on getting the world’s seas to sequester more carbon *.

But scientists working on acidification, such as Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, California, convinced the organizers to broaden their focus. In the end, ‘The Ocean in a High CO2 World’ meeting in Paris, sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), became a turning point in expanding awareness among scientists about ‘acidification’. It was also where researchers agreed on using that term, replacing more technical language about saturation, or reduced alkalinity, or levels of aragonite. Acidification was easy to comprehend, sounded alarming, and drove home the idea that carbon dioxide was a pollutant. The renaming was a critical step, Caldeira told me in an interview.”

Falsification of the our history mainly began long ago by first Egyptologists. Absolutely ignorance of the dating to the pre-flood megalithic constructions produced deep crisis in the history. Restoration date by pharaoh does not mean that the pre-flood or post-flood megalithic complex had been built at the dynastic epoch.http://www.nationmaster.com/discussion/encyclopedia/Catastrophic-plate-tectonics
Falsifications of the Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology began by wrong Big Bang Theory. for decades it produced deep cresses and intellectual disorientation of the young generation. If Sun’s visible surface is covered by hydrogen and helium it does not mean that the invisible interior has the same abundance. The true data about the solar nuclear wind of the planetary elements, produced by violent nucleosynthesis and nuclear reactions from the interior are absolutely ignored for decades.
I’m sure soon modern geologists can overcome the crisis. Elite of the modern geology are much more attentive on problems. Rulers, top scientists of the modern Geology have high degrees on truth researches, while the many top scientists (“fathers”) of the History, Astronomy, Physics and Cosmology have high degrees on false “researches” written only for the money, not for the truth. The false “fathers” of the sciences for decades have the ostrich position against discoveries by Professor Oliver and other intellectuals. The ostrich’s “science” has no future.
The “Nellie the Neutron” video project:
AVI – format (65.5mb) FLV – format (23.3mb) Stright the sitehttp://www.neutronrepulsion.ge/Universe.html
Many scientific fields need recovery ASAP. If not so all they will be rotten to the bones.

Pat Franksaid

Steve Mosher, “It was also where researchers agreed on using [acidification], replacing more technical language about saturation, or reduced alkalinity, or levels of aragonite.”

Amazing. I’ve been at conferences where basic terminology was resolved. But it was always to make terms accurate so as to clarify the meaning of what was under discussion by the community. But here we have scientists at a conference choosing scientifically false nomenclature in order to achieve a larger political impact, for partisan goals.

The atmosphere of climate science is so poisoned that this corruption of science probably seemed completely fine and normal to most of those folks. Hannah Arendt probably never thought in her wildest dreams that her thesis on Eichmann would find an echo in science.

Message #22 above (Litmus Test for Big Brother) suggests that the US Department of Energy violates its own charter by ignoring “empirical evidence of neutron repulsion in the rest mass of every nucleus with two or more neutrons”.

Brian Hsaid

Oog. Ya, I fell off a bike or two, but not that big, and the stops were more abrasive than sudden. My brainbox incident occurred in the back seat of my boss’ big Chrysler heading to work outside Ottawa city limits in a snowstorm. I’m told he swung around a snowdrift and couldn’t get back in his lane before an oncoming car t-boned his just back of my seat, ahead of the trunk. It seems my head deposited the side window in small pieces in a wide spray pattern yards from the car. I have vague memories of coming to in the hospital, but nothing really clear till a couple of weeks later after being released.

Aside from a scar near the left forehead hairline, I maintain that I have no residual damage. Others may or many not agree. ;-)

Brian Hsaid

Brian Hsaid

“ How sweeping are the oversimplifications? Well Dr. Vincent Gray explains. “All of the computer models of the climate have adopted the flat earth theory of the earth’s energy, as portrayed in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208. The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities. It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth’s surface is constant.” ”